- Related Stories
-
Still 'no demand' for media-player-free Windows
November 18, 2005 -
Ballmer to meet with EU antitrust chief
September 29, 2005 -
Massachusetts moves ahead sans Microsoft
September 23, 2005 -
Microsoft details EU concessions
June 6, 2005 -
EU upholds penalties against Microsoft
December 22, 2004 -
Europe plays hardball with Microsoft
March 24, 2004 -
EU slaps record fine on Microsoft
March 24, 2004
(continued from previous page)
read or reviewed these new documents," Brad Smith, Microsoft general counsel, said in a statement.
He added that the software giant is committed to complying with the Commission's order, noting that a new version of Windows has been shipped without the media player bundled in and that the company has given its competitors "unprecedented access to Microsoft technology."
"Of particular concern is the Commission's latest demand, that the internal workings of Windows be documented and licensed, which can open the door to the production of clones," Smith said in a statement, noting that a European court determined that such a demand is not within the scope of the Commission order. "The Commission confuses disclosure of the source code with disclosure of the internals and insists that it will fine the company if it fails to address this."
The Commission's trustee, however, found that material Microsoft provided to third parties failed to serve a useful purpose.
"Any programmer or programming team seeking to use the technical documentation for a real development exercise would be wholly and completely unable to proceed on the basis of the documentation," Neil Barrett, Commission monitoring trustee, said in a statement.
"The documentation appears to be fundamentally flawed in its conception, and in its level of explanation and detail," Barrett added. "Overall, the process of using the documentation is an absolutely frustrating, time-consuming and ultimately fruitless task."
The trustee advised that the documentation would need a "drastic overhaul," in order for it to be considered useful.
Microsoft contended that its latest revision should be reviewed by the Commission and trustee before complaints are issued.
"We revised the technical documents last week, at the Commission's request," Smith said in a statement. "In the interest of due process, we think it would have been reasonable for the Commission and the Trustee at least to read and review these new documents before criticizing them as being insufficient."
Once an oral hearing is held and, if the Commission ultimately renders a final decision unfavorable to the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant, the Commission may take up the issue of continuing with its daily fine until it believes that Microsoft has complied with its order.
See more CNET content tagged:
commission, objection, compliance, antitrust, order
They have money to play such games. After all, compliance with court order in long term might cost more.
www.nopieinthesky.net
I would refer the EU Judge *cough* "Gavel Jockey" to http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/legal/eudecision/
Great, if is documented then Microsoft has no reason to be delaying releasing it...it's public knowledge, right? They should have no problem in releasing it officially next week...
Are you on crack? Read the Samba developement list, Microsoft is always changing things and only notifing "partners" about the changes. It can take Samba weeks/months to figure out what changed with the latest service/security update.
It's been one year, and Microsoft is "still working" on releasing documentation as per U.S Anti-trust ruling...they are delaying the information since they only want businesses to implement software which is Microsoft approved. If they delay a few more years, more business will be locked into Microsoft based solutions. Once business are locked in, it's very costly to change...that's their main arguement why Windows has lower TCO than Linux...too costly to migrate Office files and interface with Windows based infrasture....
Besides most other software makers that have programs that other communicate with already have published details.
Try to keep up
I assume then following the EU logic that Apple should be required to produce a 'Media Playerless' version of the Ipod as they are clearly budling it with software that displays photos and a hard disk, to the detriment of competitiors!
O sorry they are based in Europe so they are exempt from the Anti Monopoly Rules.
Microsoft was declared a monopoly by the U.S. D.O.J., and (AFAIK) SAP was not.
Microsoft is not being asked to publish source code. They're being asked to publish the interface specs between product A and product B, so that product B competitors can compete in that market. Without that information, there is no product B competition. Using a product A market monopoly to eliminate competion in a product B market is a violation of antitrust law.
http://www.microsoft.com/worldwide/
If you want to play in their sandbox, you need to follow their rules.
than forcing them to publish their proprietary
extensions. In the end, their extensions are
inferior and lock the consumer in. The ODF, XHTML,
CSS and HTML are good examplesn of industry
standards that MS has a hard or impossible time
following, which if they followed, would make a huge
difference. Force the monopoly to play by the rules
rather than forcing them to publish their rules
which they can change the moment they publish them.
Since they can't seem to get money from their own highly overtaxed citizens, they want to steal money from a successful American company.
If you want to compete against MS, come up with something better. If Europeans are too stupid to download their mediaplayer of choice, they shouldn't be allowed to use computers! Making MS release a version that has one is utterly stupid.
MS that their business practices were monopolistic and illegal.
The US courts never could figure that out. Some say MS bribery.
ie., financial lobbying, was involved, others say the judges
weren't smart enough in evaluating business practices. Still
others say that MS bought up enough of the plaintiffs to weaken
the case. Whatever. The American people had no problem seeing
what and how MS was doing. Only the EU courts had the courage
to stand up and smack MS where it hurts, the pocketbook.
Maybe the EU is a general failure. They are an outstanding
success in the case.
http://www.microsoft.com/worldwide/
I assume Microsoft is free to pull out of Europe at any time.
--and before you Linux peeps start up... yes they could all install linux and turn those paper weights 'back on' WITHOUT MS software
lol
Exactly! Tell 'em where to go!
Of course M$ can't cancel licenses for users that have paid for thier software, but they could close the European M$ offices. Then, there would be no way for the EU to enforce the fines. (I don't think M$ would pay if North Korea or Cuba fined them a few million a day!)
People would still "smuggle-in" copies. :)
I'm not a big M$ fan, but I'm even less a fan of big government!
It would give such a boost to us! First we will have a lot of work moving everything away from MS, and after that we aould all become much more efficient in our jobs. Just think about it, no more whining users complaining about outlook fuss, or bluescreens... (NOT being sarcastic here)
Must be the time of year, I am musing of a better world...
a bigtime MacAddict. Secondly is the EU asking for disclosure
from other software companies? Don't give some BS about how
M$ is squeezing out other businesses because back in 1995
people were saying, "oh Apple is going to go Bankrupt". Guess
what? They didn't! I agree with the previous poster. I am not a
fan of a Foreign Agency trying to tell a U.S. Company what to do.
As far as I am concerned the EU can mind it's own business in
Europe and leave U.S. Business to the U.S. Government.
For you bleeding hearts out there: "If the EU gets away with this
and M$ complies and pays for it, what's to stop them from going
after other U.S. companies?"
of all the MEDIA players Mediaplayer is the most liked cause #1 they do allow other people to make codecs for mediaplayer. Mplayer is another example of a media player that does this. i can go to a website and download a codec for media player if realplayer or apple lets other people do this they would do much better. you can download any codec from websites and not have to wait for Real or apple to realise the codec
i use OOB for anime movies there is none for real player
with apple and realplayer you can only get the codecs from their server and you have to pay for their software (apple has a free but its not full)
Please read the EU pdf that you can find using a searh like Google and the text:
Case COMP/C-3/37.792
for the pdf.
It is a well written text about MS and its abuse of its monopoly state.
It schould have been written in the USA but the US DoJ simply screwed it up.
- Microsoft a Monopoly?
- by Pascoli December 29, 2005 11:05 PM PST
- In spite of its conviction, I simply don't see MS as a monopoly.There are so many OS's out there. People who use macs do just fine. Linux is free and comes with thousands dollars worth of applications if one had to buy equivalent close source ones. Most ms Offices filles formats have been reverse engeniered. they should just get off of the back of ms and let the market place deal with this. Sun and Oracle were in much better shape in circa 97---2000 up to the bust. All that was way before microsoft conviction. I believe that if it wasn't for microsoft distribution, java would never have met the success it has today; and that was a business deal, not a court order ms followed. if you can not interoperate with their servers, buy another brand. osx as a server that works fine. a company can go all apple and unix. it's nothing like your electric or water company whith whom you've got no choice. and look at the oss movement complaining that the licenses are too expensive and don't comply with their philosopy. then either change your philosophy or don't use their protocols. don't force them to give them to you for free when they are paying people to code.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(62 Comments)